Virtually Everyone is an Atheist in this Day and Age

[Guy Threepwood]

The opposite of an atheist is not someone who believes in Christianity/Hinduism/Islam or any other recognized religion. The opposite of an atheist is someone who believes in ALL gods that have ever been worshipped throughout history. In this day and age virtually everyone is an atheist, when it comes to at least one god or another. There was a time when most people weren’t atheists; when people tended to believe in ALL gods and just happened to have certain ones that they worshipped and felt were more powerful.

Christians were among the first outspoken atheists, claiming a belief in their own god, while denying the existence of all other gods. Christians are atheists when it comes to Odin and Zeus, Vishnu and Ra, and every single other deity ever worshipped by man. The only difference between a Christian’s atheism and mine is that I have one more god on my list of those I don't happen to believe in than they do.

similarly, most atheists are skeptical of several accidental explanations for the universe, be it steady state, big crunch, M theory, Multiverses, String theory etc etc..
I'm just skeptical of one more than atheists are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

similarly, most atheists are skeptical of several accidental explanations for the universe, be it steady state, big crunch, M theory, Multiverses, String theory etc etc..
I'm just skeptical of one more than atheists are.

Actually, the analogy doesnt quite fit because you replace the 'accidental explanation' with a supernatural one.
Still, I chuckled.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

wouldn't the origins of nature have to transcend nature? i.e. be supernatural?

otherwise you are saying that the laws of nature were ultimately created by .. those same laws... it don't work!

 

[Drolefille]

That's almost right. Atheist is a more modern term, and isn't an exact translation of the original Greek word (ἄθεος).
It was used to describe those who lacked belief in the 'official' Gods, regardless of their belief in other Gods. In modern terms, they were not atheists, though.

Bingo.

I don't know if this is what the OP intended, but another way of looking at it:

If a theist was to apply the same type of thinking or the same standard of justification to their own preferred religion as all the ones he rejects (or even just never bothers to think about), then he wouldn't believe in that one either.

IOW, any theist who doesn't believe in all gods (i.e. any theist who actually exists) is working from a double standard.

And that is a potential argument - although not one that is necessarily true, IMO.

I'm aware of what OP is trying to do, I just think it's an argument that convinces no one who wasn't agreeing already, lowers the level of discourse to those "gotcha" games, and abuses the English language past the point that descriptive linguistics will allow. I'm not a prescriptivist particularly but working from common understandings and definitions is what language is about. I could argue that monotheism really just means hearing about gods only with one ear, and so if you hear with both ears you're a polytheist (or stereotheist). But while it might make for a joke, it isn't compelling and making it a sincere argument comes across as immature at best.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

wouldn't the origins of nature have to transcend nature? i.e. be supernatural?

otherwise you are saying that the laws of nature were ultimately created by .. those same laws... it don't work!

I generally prefer to go with 'Buggered if I know' as my answer to origins.

 

[Drolefille]

I generally prefer to go with 'Buggered if I know' as my answer to origins.

I feel like you and Terry Pratchett would get along Or maybe I've been reading a LOT of Discworld lately.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I feel like you and Terry Pratchett would get along Or maybe I've been reading a LOT of Discworld lately.

lol...I suspect he's a little more quirky than me, but our general philosophies on life appear to be pretty compatible!

 

[Norrin-6-]

In this day and age virtually everyone is an atheist, when it comes to at least one god or another.

...

Christians were among the first outspoken atheists, claiming a belief in their own god, while denying the existence of all other gods.

I can see the rhetorical power behind your words, but I cannot take this line of thinking seriously and respectfully disagree that we can call Christians atheists (unless they don't actually believe in the god of Christianity).

I do not see monotheism as a subset of atheism. Monotheism is a theism that by definition rejects gods, and accepts one god. So you see, monotheism is a much better label for the Christians, who accept Yahweh, than atheism ... because it accurately describes their beliefs, whereas I would argue that atheism does not. Atheism does not claim a belief in a god, and you admit that Christians from the outset claimed a belief in their own god. Yes they denied all other gods, but monotheism is a label that covers that, and monotheism is a theism; it would be contradictory to say that monotheism is also a form of atheism which is the opposite of theism.

Again, I understand fully what you mean. When it comes to Christianity, atheists believe in one less god. But Christians are monotheists, who believe in one more god than atheists.

 

[McBell]

wouldn't the origins of nature have to transcend nature? i.e. be supernatural?

otherwise you are saying that the laws of nature were ultimately created by .. those same laws... it don't work!

Says who?

I sincerely hope you are not going to argue from incredulity...

 

[Quintessence]

The usefulness (or not) of the terms "atheist" and "theist" is directly related to the meaningfulness (or not) of the term "god".

Well, yes. Both terms are meaningless in the absence of defining god(s). Theism and atheism only have meaning relative to specific god-concepts, which is kind of what the OP is pointing out. Historically, "atheist" was used to designate anybody who didn't follow the "one true god," and for some it still is. Terms that define oneself in the negative are problematic in general, but doubly so for terms that rest on other words that are also largely meaningless without clarification, like god(s). Inevitably each person has to go "this is my understanding of god(s) and I accept/reject that idea." If I go around assuming every (a)theist is (a)theistic with respect to my theology, things get stupid inaccurate really, really fast.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I generally prefer to go with 'Buggered if I know' as my answer to origins.

which would you put your money on?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

which would you put your money on?

Pascals wager?
Epically bad argument. I simply go with self honesty and don't fill all gaps in knowledge with an explanation. Instead I tag them as 'gaps in knowledge'.

 

[gsa]

which would you put your money on?

I wouldn’t bet. I’ve written this elsewhere, but it is worth revisiting here: There may very well be evidence for a Creator. Far from a preponderance of solid evidence at the moment, I think, but assuming that reality reveals anything about this being, it is wholly incomparable to most of what is revealed in the monotheistic religions. Even if the jury is out on the question of a god, the jury is in on the question of the traditional depiction of god as depicted in the Abrahamic traditions.

 

[Willamena]

which would you put your money on?

I'd put my money on me.

 

[McBell]

which would you put your money on?

I would put my money on "none of the above".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

which would you put your money on?

I am perfectly fine with putting my money on I have no idea.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I am perfectly fine with putting my money on I have no idea.

To my perspective, the insistence that some people have on providing explanations for EVERYTHING is what causes an awful lot of "theology" and philosophical problems generally.

 

[Sapiens]

I believe the OP is driving at the old saw of, "we're all atheists, I just carry it one god farther."

 

[Uberpod]

This thread takes a very relevant rhetorical point and twists into semantic absurdity. Not altogether unfunny.

 

[devshift]

"Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.", Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia